The former judge Baltasar Garzón will continue without exercising. His sentence of 11 years of prevarication disqualification, imposed by the Supreme Court in 2012, for ordering the telephone intervention to the lawyers of the defendants in the Gürtel case, it does not seem to be reviewed. Despite the opinion of the UN Human Rights Committee, which has given the reason former magistrate to conclude that the court violated its right to the presumption of innocence, the review of the sentence would be vetoed by jurisprudence.
The fund reviews of the Human Rights Committee are not binding, since they have no judgment of judgment and a UN Member State may, therefore, decide to comply with them or ignore them. In this way Garzón can see how its intention to return to the judicial career, considering that the period of disqualification had been completed by the revision of its sentence, it is in the air, since in addition to the non-obligatory nature of compliance measures By the Member States of this Organization there is jurisprudence of the Supreme Court that urges not to equal a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (TEDH) with organisms such as this UN dependent.
The Human Rights Committee concluded that the Supreme violated the rights of Baltasar Garzón, as it considers that it did not have "access to an independent and impartial court in the processes followed against them within the framework of the Francoism and Gürtel".
In addition, it highlights its behavior, it did not constitute a serious incompetence that could justify the criminal conviction that led to losing its position as the head of the central court of Instruction number 5 of the national audience. Therefore, the Opinion urged Spain to compensate former judge for the damage caused, which "has the obligation" to "delete criminal record" and that should "take measures to prevent similar violations from committing themselves."
The UN Human Rights Committee Regulation indicates that a "Special Rapporteur" must be appointed to follow up on the approved opinion in order to "make sure" that Spain has taken measures to "give effect" to the resolution.
This subsequent control of the opinion is developed in Article 2 of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights by the States that ratified it and, although it could be a resquice for the former magistrate of the national audience, the Spanish jurisprudence also touches it. According to this article, any member of the Organization, as in the case of Spain, must abide by repair measures as well as reporting on compliance.
In a judgment of February 12, 2020, the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court considered that "the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights with the recommendations or opinions of the different committees of the varied international organizations that are pronounced on compliance are pronounced on compliance From the obligations assumed by Spain on human rights, "he indicates the judgment of 2020, as he published the reason.
Thus, they believe that only the resolutions of the TEDH are enablers for the "revision of the judgments in which the violation of fundamental right occurred". The Organic Law of the Judiciary indicates that only a sentence will be reviewed when TED concludes that any human rights or fundamental freedoms of the appellant was violated.Updated Date: 27 August 2021, 19:58